A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
Is God just the reason, no more no less?
Explanation of paradigm differences
- Thread starter Senthil
- Start date
Aussie Thoughts
Just my 2 cents
The beginning, middle and end actually.
lol me too...
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
No need to be humble, you can save that for people who know stuff.
In my post 'the public space' infers to media or how Christianity appears to us from the outside.
I might have given you the wrong impression, I'm not Christian and I only understand Christianity better than others because it has shaped the western world in which I live. Please shut your ears and eyes if I speak of Christianity, it is from a position of ignorance.
Quite. I though the quote: "While the god of the Old Testament was shouting command(ment)s, Prajapati was asking: "Who am I?" speaks of the same old ignorance and prejudice ...
The only stuff I get then is from the public space. I have no idea of the 'private space'.
Lumpino
Member
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-schrei/the-god-project-hinduism_b_486099.html
"The foundation of yoga is that the key to god, or the macrocosm, or the absolute ......"
In Hinduism, for example, there is a Bhakti yoga. And with the related effort to achieve a visible manifestation deity which is worshiped by Bhakti yogi. See for example Ramkrishna and his vision of goddess Kali.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HdUfuemNx...rBYbGaIs9gU/s1600/Ramakrishna+Kali+poster.jpg
It is only as an example. Meditation about a name could bring a visible manifestation of deity. Or another spiritual being (angel, demon, natural spirit).
People who realy want could know the reality, only it take a time.
But the higher being , mostly the slower comes. So, calling up a natural spirit or demon throuhg a meditation could take a month or two. And by high spirit, like for example "pagan" god or goddess it could take a years. And the by highest being it could take decades....
Christians mostly do believe, yogis occasionally have a direct knowledge.
But, a lower spiritual being can show the reality people too.
"The foundation of yoga is that the key to god, or the macrocosm, or the absolute ......"
In Hinduism, for example, there is a Bhakti yoga. And with the related effort to achieve a visible manifestation deity which is worshiped by Bhakti yogi. See for example Ramkrishna and his vision of goddess Kali.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HdUfuemNx...rBYbGaIs9gU/s1600/Ramakrishna+Kali+poster.jpg
It is only as an example. Meditation about a name could bring a visible manifestation of deity. Or another spiritual being (angel, demon, natural spirit).
People who realy want could know the reality, only it take a time.
But the higher being , mostly the slower comes. So, calling up a natural spirit or demon throuhg a meditation could take a month or two. And by high spirit, like for example "pagan" god or goddess it could take a years. And the by highest being it could take decades....
Christians mostly do believe, yogis occasionally have a direct knowledge.
But, a lower spiritual being can show the reality people too.
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
Another way to put it, perhaps, is that there are two types of paths. The straight path of the more rigid religions versus the branching paths of the more open religions. I see this difference of thinking between Thomas and Wil practically daily. The straight path is one of focus on the path that God commanded. The branching path is the human choice to diverge from any one path to another as seems right to the individual.
It seems to me neither is inherently better or worse - simply different. The Open Path allows an individual to come to the source in their own way, following the path that makes sense to them. The danger of this path is that it is all too easy to misread the signs, or read into the signs what one wants to see rather than what is actually there. Leading to people misleading themselves.
The rigid path gives people a formal structure to follow, which is its strength for many who don't know what to do otherwise. The downside to this path is that it can be just as misleading if the structured path is made up by those whose best interests are not in the person's journey, but rather their own agenda to an end. Leading to people being mislead by the source they believe they can trust.
Both paths have strengths and flaws, or so it seems to me. In both cases, in the end, the individual has to be aware of where they are going, whether they are directing themselves, or are being directed by another.
It seems to me neither is inherently better or worse - simply different. The Open Path allows an individual to come to the source in their own way, following the path that makes sense to them. The danger of this path is that it is all too easy to misread the signs, or read into the signs what one wants to see rather than what is actually there. Leading to people misleading themselves.
The rigid path gives people a formal structure to follow, which is its strength for many who don't know what to do otherwise. The downside to this path is that it can be just as misleading if the structured path is made up by those whose best interests are not in the person's journey, but rather their own agenda to an end. Leading to people being mislead by the source they believe they can trust.
Both paths have strengths and flaws, or so it seems to me. In both cases, in the end, the individual has to be aware of where they are going, whether they are directing themselves, or are being directed by another.
there are folks that need rigidity.... I am probably one of them... but I am so damn stubborn I insist on being free...
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
Precisely. There are folks that need rigidity. And there are folks that need freedom to go their own way.
I see that (straight versus rigid) as a portion of the paradigm difference, maybe. I'm personally on a straight and rigid path. The difference might be that I put myself on it. This jumping around, choosing, switching, freedom of choice thing is temporary, until a narrower school is found. Most Hindus do find a sampradaya (school) and become quite hard core on a personal level, yet respect other paths as well.
Mystics have said there are 14 legitimate nadis (nerve currents) through which kundalini can rise to the sahaswara. Each represents a different school within SD.
I see the paradigm difference more in reincarnation/karma versus one life, heaven/hell versus moksha, and Jesus/any prophet versus no prophet. All this, when hard set in the subconscious mind, makes for a different way of approaching life, a different lens.
Mystics have said there are 14 legitimate nadis (nerve currents) through which kundalini can rise to the sahaswara. Each represents a different school within SD.
I see the paradigm difference more in reincarnation/karma versus one life, heaven/hell versus moksha, and Jesus/any prophet versus no prophet. All this, when hard set in the subconscious mind, makes for a different way of approaching life, a different lens.
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
The nonrigid path is not one of jumping around, choosing one thing, then another every other week. That is lack of discipline and it can occur in both the rigid and open paths. And it is discipline that is one of the requirements on both paths in order for one to move forward successfully.
As a broad generalization, let's equate it to someone who goes to school and gets a bachelor's degree in farming. Another grows up and works the farm, doing the chores as a child; eventually becoming the farmer himself when reaching maturity. The former would be considered the rigid path (I wish I had a better word than rigid, as that word carries a negative connotation, and that is not what I mean). The latter is an open path. Both paths lead to the same place, the mastery of farming.
As a broad generalization, let's equate it to someone who goes to school and gets a bachelor's degree in farming. Another grows up and works the farm, doing the chores as a child; eventually becoming the farmer himself when reaching maturity. The former would be considered the rigid path (I wish I had a better word than rigid, as that word carries a negative connotation, and that is not what I mean). The latter is an open path. Both paths lead to the same place, the mastery of farming.
Is it? We have the knowledge to get the oil out through fracking... we will increase our profits and make shareholders happy...
but then there is the knowledge that we are destroying aquifers through putting a slew of chemicals into the ground...
and destroying our planet by refining and burning petrochemicals and making plastics...
Back to the rigid vs free... a lot of folks think I am on a namby pamby lovey dovey wishy washy path...and want to deny it is any form of christianity...
but in my belief system...thou shall not commit adultery means you shouldn't adulterate your beliefs...you should hold true to your principles...beyond marriage implications....thou shall not murder means don't murder creativity, don't kill enthusiasm... do I conform...hell no, I fail/sin all the time in this regard...I am a work in progress...
You're right, Wil. I was only thinking of how religious knowledge from a book, unless applied, is not much. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Of course, as you aptly point out, it knowledge can be applied immorally. Take gunpowder, for instance.
We're all works in progress. To deny that would be plain arrogance.
We're all works in progress. To deny that would be plain arrogance.
I would have thought the elephant in the room here is, who speaks for the paradigm?
Senthil points to an article that 'maybe' pinpoints the differences, 'maybe not'.
I read it and see, when it comes to the Abrahamics, the same old ill-informed assumptive prejudice at play that I get here and elsewhere.
That Senthil didn't see it is understandable. If all you have is the 'public space', then you don't really have a fair or reasoned critique of what traditional Christianity actually is – it's deeply unfashionable at the moment. If you're Catholic, you just have to look at what the media's making of Pope Francis, and what your own reading points out, to see the massive gulf between the popular notion, which is ever eager and ready to jump to the self-serving conclusion.
+++
There's an idea in the west that if one thinks one's on the path, then you're on the path. It's illogical, but people tend to get upset when you suggest maybe their path is actually them going nowhere. There also seems to be assumed some virtue in 'discovering it for oneself' rather than draw on the resources of history and the example of those who have gone before. Most strange. Think of where we'd be if that was the case with medicine.
Whilst the are a number of ways under the cover of the Hindu Tradition, what hasn't happened in the East, as far as I'm aware, is the proliferation of denominations like the phenomena that occurred within Christianity in America. These denominations differ from the previous denominational distinctions in that they are subjective variations, rather than objective differences. This because America allows the freedom of anyone to declare a religion, and religion is seen as a commercial enterprise.
I think 'spirituality' is probably the only discipline in the world where some would say it's better to approach the whole thing blind, without a clue, than to talk to someone who's travelled the same road.
I have a friend who teaches guitar. He has a music policy that kids should just be allowed to pick up an instrument and make a noise, discover for themselves. 'How long before they can play?' I ask. 'Oh, that won't happen. But that's not the point. What's important is learning is fun, once you've got that instilled, then the learning can start.'
There seems to be this assumption that because this is the path I choose to walk, God or the Cosmos or whoever is obliged to respond as I would have Him/It respond.
I suggest it's a flawed idea, at best.
There's a reasoned physiological reason for why a lost man will, without markers, walk round in circles. There's a spiritual corollary, that the path we choose to walk, without the checks and balances, those elements that render religion 'rigid', tends to end up being one determined by our weaknesses, not by our strengths. We naturally shy away from the uncomfortable.
The thing about the Traditions, is their psychologies are quite insightful. They have millennia of experience behind them. They're not the product of the latest sensation. Like prayer or meditation, they're not something that popped fully formed out of the hat, as it were. There are pitfalls.
When it comes to the question of the spiritual, every long-standing tradition is in agreement: You cannot do it yourself. You cannot be your own spiritual master – that idea is a contemporary concept that plays to consumer culture. Any psychologist will have plenty of evidence to show just how capable we are at kidding ourselves.
Two things: Who ever said religion was about 'bliss' or 'well-being'? None of the traditional commentaries, that's for sure. We bought that off those selling the East in the West.
The other thing? I have a sneak suspcion that the East thinks the West is so farup its egoic wazoo that it's beyond help, that care is palliative until the condition works its way through. So until then, ypou'll get various 'gurus' selling various methods top keep the natives happy, as it were ...
Senthil points to an article that 'maybe' pinpoints the differences, 'maybe not'.
I read it and see, when it comes to the Abrahamics, the same old ill-informed assumptive prejudice at play that I get here and elsewhere.
That Senthil didn't see it is understandable. If all you have is the 'public space', then you don't really have a fair or reasoned critique of what traditional Christianity actually is – it's deeply unfashionable at the moment. If you're Catholic, you just have to look at what the media's making of Pope Francis, and what your own reading points out, to see the massive gulf between the popular notion, which is ever eager and ready to jump to the self-serving conclusion.
+++
There's an idea in the west that if one thinks one's on the path, then you're on the path. It's illogical, but people tend to get upset when you suggest maybe their path is actually them going nowhere. There also seems to be assumed some virtue in 'discovering it for oneself' rather than draw on the resources of history and the example of those who have gone before. Most strange. Think of where we'd be if that was the case with medicine.
Whilst the are a number of ways under the cover of the Hindu Tradition, what hasn't happened in the East, as far as I'm aware, is the proliferation of denominations like the phenomena that occurred within Christianity in America. These denominations differ from the previous denominational distinctions in that they are subjective variations, rather than objective differences. This because America allows the freedom of anyone to declare a religion, and religion is seen as a commercial enterprise.
I think 'spirituality' is probably the only discipline in the world where some would say it's better to approach the whole thing blind, without a clue, than to talk to someone who's travelled the same road.
I have a friend who teaches guitar. He has a music policy that kids should just be allowed to pick up an instrument and make a noise, discover for themselves. 'How long before they can play?' I ask. 'Oh, that won't happen. But that's not the point. What's important is learning is fun, once you've got that instilled, then the learning can start.'
There seems to be this assumption that because this is the path I choose to walk, God or the Cosmos or whoever is obliged to respond as I would have Him/It respond.
I suggest it's a flawed idea, at best.
There's a reasoned physiological reason for why a lost man will, without markers, walk round in circles. There's a spiritual corollary, that the path we choose to walk, without the checks and balances, those elements that render religion 'rigid', tends to end up being one determined by our weaknesses, not by our strengths. We naturally shy away from the uncomfortable.
The thing about the Traditions, is their psychologies are quite insightful. They have millennia of experience behind them. They're not the product of the latest sensation. Like prayer or meditation, they're not something that popped fully formed out of the hat, as it were. There are pitfalls.
When it comes to the question of the spiritual, every long-standing tradition is in agreement: You cannot do it yourself. You cannot be your own spiritual master – that idea is a contemporary concept that plays to consumer culture. Any psychologist will have plenty of evidence to show just how capable we are at kidding ourselves.
Two things: Who ever said religion was about 'bliss' or 'well-being'? None of the traditional commentaries, that's for sure. We bought that off those selling the East in the West.
The other thing? I have a sneak suspcion that the East thinks the West is so farup its egoic wazoo that it's beyond help, that care is palliative until the condition works its way through. So until then, ypou'll get various 'gurus' selling various methods top keep the natives happy, as it were ...
Yeah....and the Vatican is a non-profit organization. Give the phonograph a nudge old boy, your needle's stuck in the groove again.
The Vatican is a soviergn nation and has nothing to do with the US tax system.
You see? This kind of comment is pure prejudice that entirely misses the point.